About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
in 1986 but are staring us in the face today. first, a much larger and much more dangerous deficit and second, a dramatic increase been income and inequality. old-style tax reform could make both conditions worse. but don't dismiss the old framework lightly. credit for the 1986 reform law belongs to democrats like bill bradley in the senate. just as much as to president reagan. as a member of the house back then, i not only voted for it, but i whipped the votes to make sure it passed. i was on the committee set up by dan rostenkowski to get it done. the approach made a good deal of sense at the time. then, as now, the code was littered with egregious loopholes that needed to be reformed. recall the so-called passive law schools that were in place back then. they allowed wealthy taxpayers to gain the system. someone could invest in a bowling alley and then, if the bowling alley lost money, they could take a write off many times larger than their initial money incestment of their entire income tax liability. we need to get rid of such a gimmicky tax shelter. paring these loopholes al
that substantial deficit reduction would be associated with a substantial reduction in interest rates that would push the economy forward at the more rapid pace. indeed, in an important part of the economic growth of the 1990's can properly be attributed to the unlocking of economic energy that was achieved by the 1993 budget measures, that led to a reduction in interest rate, increase in investment, accelerating growth, lower capital clause, further improvement in the deficit and so forth. that approach, a fiscal consolidationization that lead to substantial growth was a plausible and compelling vision for the country in 1993 1993, it has been a plausible and come compelling vision for other countries and times in places. you cannot fall very far out of the basic. with interest rates at 1.7% for ten years. with a real interest at the level where if you want to put your money or store your money with the government for as much as twentd years, you have to pay them for the privilege of having them hold your money. if they are going give you back inflation. in such an environment, the reduction in
would call these gimmicks, the full ten year cost of this bill has of $460 billion deficit. the second has a one half trillion dollar deficit. probably the most cynical gimmick in this bill is something that we all probably agree on. we don't think we should cut doctors' 21% next year. we stop those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years. we all call this the toxics. well, according to your numbers it cost her her $71 billion. it was in the first iteration of all these bills. because it was a big price tag and made the score look bad, may look like a deficit, that provision was taken out and has been going on in stand-alone legislation. ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. hiding spending does not reduce spending. and so when you take a look of this is just as not add up. let's finish with the cost curve. we bending the cost curve down or up? well, if you look at your own chief actuary of medicare revenue up. he is time we are going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have. and so when you take a look
claimed that you can reduce our deficit through tax increases alone. he's never said that. the president and vice president have said we need to take the ballad propose, using the kind of frachlwork that bipartisan groups have suggested. whereas republicans have been very clear not one more penny, even from people like mitt romney to reduce the deficit. so our point isn't that you can increase taxes on wealthier people, and do the whole thing on the deficit. our point of review is that they should be asked to contribute a little more. go back to paying what they were in the clinton administration, when the economy was roaring. that's what we're saying. we support a combination of additional targeted cuts. but also revenue for folks who are doing very well to help reduce the deficit. because if you don't have one penny more from very wealthy people it means you sock it to everybody else. seniors on medicare pay more. less investment in our kids' education. and that's exactly the romney/ryan budget does. itzhaks it to the middle class and seniors, in order to give these tax breaks to very
proven to represent the opposite of peace. the eu severs from an extensive democratic deficit with violations of human rights along increasing social inequality. that stigma from the norwegian peace council, tariq ali. >> amy, the norwegian peace council has criticized the peace prize in the past. in fact, alfred nobel specified the peace prize should only be given to those who are actively promoting the cause of peace. which the eu does not do, either in the middle east -- for instance, it has backed and supported everything the israelis have done as far as the occupation of palestine is concerned. it has tried to isolate the palestinian government in the past. it has carried on supporting nato -- it is part of it, and and the war in afghanistan. it is not popular even among many swedish and norwegian members of parliament. i was there many years ago when they give it to obama. about 10,000 people demonstrated against that because obama had just said he was good escalate the war in afghanistan and pakistan. so the peace committee itself now, the nobel prize committee, has bec
to explain it and explain how they're not going to explode the deficits and put a big new burden on the middle class. >> we see a number of battleground stake polls out this morning including those by cbs news and "the new york times" that show a tightening of the contest in several of these states. can joe biden tonight stop the slide in the polls for president obama? >> well, nora, i don't think there's a slide in the polls. i think there was a bump after the debate. i think it was mostly last weekend. as you know, these polls that you conducted don't measure the days since the debate, they measure what happened from before the debate to after. so i don't think there's big momentum. there's no doubt that governor romney collected a couple of points, mostly of republican leaning independents as a result of the last debate. what i think the vice president can do is really drive home the fact that one candidate, the president, has a vision that has squarely in it the interest of the middle class and the notion that you build the economy through the middle class and through a stron
building but at least he had the right message. your sign said reduce deficits and you thoughted no blood for oil. and you were chained to a rural health organization. what's your message? >> well, -- >> so wrong building, unclear message, but at least jody reached the people. >> how long before someone noticed you? >> 18 hours. [laughter] >> why do you think people ignored you? >> i think people don't like to think about the troubles in the international spectrum right now. >> not because you were below sidewalk level? jody brought me to the place where, for some reason, no one saw him. you were chained where? >> just to this door handle here. >> okay. and was this sign here when you -- >> actually it was. >> did you read this sign? >> after i locked to the door handle. >> yes, after he locked to the door handle. but every good protester has a contingency plan. >> when you found out you were in the wrong place you just unlocked yourself and moved, right? >> no. because i didn't have the key. i, went to the demonstration -- >> forgot it? left it somewhere? >> i left it in the car way was
and how they would help the middle class and the jobs and how they would reduce the debt and the deficit you don't want to be at a budget committee hearing parsing numbers so to speak. i think paul ryan has done an excellent job representing the middle class coming from a wisconsin background and able to put that state into play and to keep the momentum going. i think we'll see a great debate night this thursday. >> i know. can't wait. thanks so much for being with us this morning thank you. >> it was billed as a rumble in a temperature cold room and things did heat up this weekend. the daily show's jon stewart facing off with i am fox news pil o'reilly at a mock debate and if last week's debate left you hungry for zingers, these guys did not disappoint. >> you have to let the free marketplace run a little bit. i understand the wall street stuff and i got it. i am not a big wall street guy. you have to let them employ. you have to unleash the machine. >> yes, because what could go wrong? >> like we're doing real great now, huh? >> we're not doing real great now. if you take your eye from
to experts, he'd have to raise taxes on the middle class - or increase the deficit to pay for it. if we can't trust him here... how could we ever trust him here? >>> less than a month away now before election day. and how can we forget political ads, they remind us each and evy hour on the hour what is happening now. with barack obama and mitt romney had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to define themselves for us while, of course, vilifying the other. that's why when i draw your attention to this documentary, that airs tomorrow night, on pbs, it is from the folks who bring us front line. here is just a preview. >> i got my start as a community organizer. >> i know how the private sector works. i know how jobs come. i know how they go. >> for years, these two men have been telling us their stories. >> he keeps a lot of his views to himself. >> he knows that every step he takes is a potential land mine. >> people have great respect for obama and will still say this is most insular administration in their lifetime. >> this october, front line looks for meaning in the lives, choices an
is the lineup in the case as far as the deficits, who will hear it and decide? >> only eight justices will decide because justice elena kagan is recused having worked. so eight justices. it's a pretty good bet that for more conservative justices will vote to if not strike down entirely, limit the use of race. the others will go the other way and as usable, justice anthony kennedy will hold the deciding vote. he has on the one hand said some positive things about using race and about the importance of diversity. on the other hand, he's never in his career and voted to uphold an affirmative action plan so she is a real wild card. >> is it possible this could be a 4-4 decision? >> it's not likely that it's possible and if it were, that would have the effect without opinion and without reasoning from the supreme court automatically affirming the decision below which had up held the texas program manning the split would equal that affirmative action stays the way we know it today. >> is the university of texas the only school that uses this type of system? >> that's right this combination
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)